If I were to advise Barney it would be best to first identify each of the major issues he is presented with.  Barney is facing three distinct property issues; Mountain real estate, beach real estate, and his automobile-personal property. MOUNTAIN PROPERTY-Real property Since Barney, Andy, Floyd, and Howard had a Joint Tenancy agreement and because having a joint tenancy creates a right of survivorship, when any of the party dies the property reverts in equal shares to the remainder of the group (Legal Dictionary, 2012). If Floyd dies first, the remainder of the party would then each own 33.3% of the property. If Howard died next, Barney and Andy would each own 50% of the property. Upon Andy’s death Barney would own 100% of the property. Under a Joint tenancy agreement Opie, Andy’s son, was not entitled to Andy’s original share (25%) or any of his portions when the other parties passed on.If the ownership was in common rather than Joint ownership the rights to the property would be passed down to the heirs or estates of each of the four owners (Sheman, 2012). As Opie had no ownership claim (either fractional or whole) on the property, he could not legally have offered up as collateral to secure a loan. By doing so he risks legal issues for fraudulently obtaining that loan. The loan originator may be culpable too, for not establishing Opie’s claim to title before attempting to foreclose on property that he doesn’t own.  I would recommend Barney contact the loan company and clarify our position, rightful claim,  and title to the land. In the event this doesn’t stop the foreclosure we can always go to court to get relief. Opie may not have to repay the loan, but he certainly will have to be accountable for offering land he didn’t own as collateral, at least to the loan company. That is not a concern for Barney. It lies with Opie and his creditor. It appears that the property in question currently has a squatter living on it, and allegedly he has lived there for the last 20 years. If the scenario was presented accurately, Ernest may have right to title of the property. I would see if he went so far as to have the original title extinguished. If extinguished and reissued to Ernest, Barney, may still be able to challenge the possession. If it has not been extinguished, I would recommend Barney have the local Sherriff remove Ernest for trespass. When presenting an Adverse Possession case in North Carolina the burden of proof is on the claimant, and they have to meet these criteria; lived on the property, hostile, and notorious, continuous and exclusive, for 20 years, under known and visible lines and boundaries. (Simmons, 2012). The claimants would have to prove the aforementioned points by a preponderance of evidence. It would be a good idea for Barney to produce any tax bills he paid on the property during the last twenty years as one way to deny the adverse possession claim. Another would be to canvas the neighborhood to see if any of the locals dispute the time of residence Ernest has taken, and thus be useful as witnesses in court. BEACH PROPERTY-Real property Barney’s beach house is being taken by the local government under Eminent Domain. Barney has the right to fight the local government. If he does, he should prepare for a long and probably expensive fight. He could argue that this seizure violates the Takings clause in the US Constitution. His argument  could be based on the intended use of the project doesn’t stand up to the common good, as his property (or neighborhood) doesn’t suffer from blight or present a danger, nor will the small number of jobs created present a real economic benefit to the community. In essence this is just an attempt of the government to reallocate property to different owners, for different purposes. He may even win as more courts a lessening the application of the Pole town precedent (Kubasek, 2012, p. 383). In any event Barney will have to make sure the local government knows he opposes the action. That will force them to condemn his property and give him the actual figure they determined as the fair market value. Barney will have to weigh out that price against the potential costs of fighting the local government. If Barney does decide to fight it will likely be costly. AUTOMOBILE- Personal Property Two separate issues are found relating to Barney’s car. The first is Barney’s expectation that a person dressed in the appropriate valet uniform, in front of a valet sign/stand and in plain sight of the restaurant it services, is in fact a valet and restaurant employee. The restaurant has a responsibility to ensure property left (bailment) is returned in good condition or risk gross negligence if not (Kubasek, 2012, p. 389). In this respect Barney has a legal case he can bring against the restaurant should he choose to. The second issue with the car after it is located. Barney asked for his car back, and was told by the person possessing it, not until he was reimbursed $5600 that he paid for the vehicle. I would ask Barney to call the local Sherriff, give him a copy of his stolen vehicle report and ask the Sherriff to take possession of the car. The young man who has possession of it should bring a civil case against the used car dealer for selling him a car he didn’t have clear title to. The used car dealer has a case against his supplier. In any event the police would probably want to get a clear understanding of the situation. Barney is due his car, and the other parties will have to sort out the affair (no doubt with the assistance of the local authorities).

References

Legal Dictionary. (2012, July 16). Retrieved from The Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Joint+Tenancy Kubasek, N. K. (2012). The Legal Environment of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Sheman, F. (2012, July 16). San Francisco Chronical. Retrieved from Why Tenants in Common Have No Rights of Survivorship: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/tenants-common-rights-survivorship-1434.html Simmons, d. O. (2012, July 16). The Elements of Adverse Possession in North Carolina. Retrieved from de Ondezara Simmons PLLC: http://deondarzasimmons.com/elements-of-adverse-possession-in-north-carolina/